The Daily Pulse

Business

Florida Judge Throws Out Trump’s Defamation Claim Against Murdoch and WSJ

Reported by Varun Krishnan (Senior Writer) · CNBC - Top News ·

Unconfirmed — Reported by one source so far

Reported by one source so far

Important
Florida Judge Throws Out Trump’s Defamation Claim Against Murdoch and WSJPhoto: Wikimedia Commons

A Florida federal judge dismissed President Donald Trump’s amended defamation lawsuit against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal with prejudice. The case alleged the newspaper defamed Trump by reporting he sent a "bawdy" 50th birthday letter to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Darrin Gayles had already tossed the original $10 billion suit about six months earlier and again found Trump failed to show the defendants acted with actual malice. The judge noted Trump has consistently denied sending any letter to Epstein in 2003 and said the amended complaint merely tries to manufacture flaws in the investigation. By dismissing the suit with prejudice, Trump cannot file another amended version in the Miami federal court, though he may seek review on appeal. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said the president will keep pressing his "powerhouse" lawsuit against the newspaper and other defendants, vowing to hold those who spread fake news accountable. The amended filing added a claim that Murdoch told Trump, "I will handle it," during a phone call about the story, a detail first reported by Newsweek.

Context

The "actual malice" standard applies when a public figure sues for defamation, requiring proof that the publisher knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Without such proof, courts routinely dismiss the case, limiting further lawsuits on the same claim.

ExplainerWhy this matters

What Happened

President Donald Trump’s amended defamation suit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal was dismissed by Judge Darrin Gayles in a Miami federal court, this time with prejudice, ending the case at the trial level.

Why It Matters

Defamation claims by public figures must meet the "actual malice" test, meaning they must prove the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The judge found Trump’s complaint lacked such proof, reinforcing the high burden for celebrities to win defamation suits. A dismissal with prejudice also prevents the same claim from being re‑filed in that court, limiting Trump’s ability to relitigate the same facts.

What Happens Next

Trump can appeal the decision to a higher court, where he must again demonstrate actual malice. If the appellate court upholds the dismissal, the lawsuit ends permanently. If the appeal succeeds, the case could be sent back for further proceedings, but no new amended complaint can be filed in the district court.

Read more at CNBC - Top News →